User talk:Doc glasgow/Mar/2008

Roy Oldham - Vandalism

Doc. I understand that living politicians can create diffculties for wiki. I am attempting to balance the above but every time i put some history about this man on the page its removed in favour of controversy. I understand that you have blocked the organiser of this vandalism before. he used to be gayboy-ds and has now registered as tameside-eye. You will notice from my changes to the article that i didnt remove his posts but just added to the article as a whole. Can you intervene. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Telegramsam123 (talk • contribs) 09:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Gah, that again. Well, I've had well enough of that. I think you'll find my action has solved the problem this time.--Doc^g 14:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your intervention. The hatchet job has started again with the article "samuel roy oldham" I know that if i attempt to balance the article it will just be changed back again - telegramsam123

Doc. Well its been a couple of weeks of peace and quite. Im afraid the article has been put back on again. Would you intervene. Thanks - telegramsam123. 14 March 08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Telegramsam123 (talk • contribs) 12:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Doc the hatchet job has appeared again under "samuel roy oldham" if i add balance it will, as always, be reverted to the hatchet job. would you intervene, yet again. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Telegramsam123 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Doc, the hatchet job is up again, could you intervene - yet again! thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Telegramsam123 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo

Wow, I'm in complete agreement with you on a BLP issue. That's a bit rare... Although since this isn't what I would call a BLP-penumbra issue but a straight BLP issue I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Vicki Iseman deletion review

Actually I took it to deletion review:

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 March 1#Vicki Iseman

--Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 11:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, OK.--Doc^g 12:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Doc, are you aware that every time you link to WP:BLP#1E you are now linking only to the WP:BIO guideline and NOT the WP:BLP policy? I think you're hurting your case every time you direct to the guideline rather than the stronger policy, and I think that had a bad effect on the AfD, weakening the non-Keep arguments. Due to some really unfortunate, dumb moves a few months back, the one-event subsection of WP:BLP was temporarily deleted and the shortcut was redirected to WP:BIO. I've posted about the problem at the top of the Iseman AfD discussion page. On the other hand, if you meant to link to WP:BIO, I apologize for wasting your time here, although I think linking to WP:BLP would be better. The WP:BLP link, by the way, is now WP:ONEEVENT. Confusing enough? Noroton (talk) 17:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I was not aware of that. The redirect needs changed back, as it has retrospectively changed hundreds of statements.--Doc^g 17:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Apparently it was the result of an abortive attempt to move the wording to a guideline page WP:BIO. I agree that it really needs to be moved back, because this is policy not guideline, but perhaps not now in the middle of all the hurly burly. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 17:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It really is a horrendous mess. Best not to change it back until after this DRV is over. This makes the whole AfD problematic, in my view. Actually, if we change it back now, we run into the exact opposite problem -- editors who learned to link to the WP:BIO section using WP:BLP#1E would also be confused. I think the only solution ultimately is to make the WP:BLP#1E shortcut a redlink and let the WP:BIO section rely on the other shortcut available there. The problem seems to have started when Uncle G restored the section that was deleted at WP:BLP and didn't restore the redlink for some reason, although I may be misreading the diffs. The lesson here, I think, is that we should never, ever redirect a shortcut between policies. Ever. Just redlink it and start anew. The fact that "BLP" was in the shortcut that didn't go to WP:BLP made it even worse.Noroton (talk) 17:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Aha! Now I know why I couldn't find that link when I was Afd'ing a biographical article the other day. The things I learn when snooping through other people's talk pages.... Risker (talk) 01:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I've started a discussion with some suggestions at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Shortcut WP:BLP1E should not link here. Noroton (talk) 23:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

for your assistance. MikeHobday (talk) 10:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Prince Henry

Someone keeps editing the page on prince henry to make it say various things about some isabelle. I am keeping an eye on it but am not an admin. Thanks for looking into it! --Camaeron (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Watching.--Doc^g 19:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Unblock request

Any idea which sock drawer AntHolnes (talk · contribs) belongs to? They protest innocence and seem to be confused by the block log summary. Your input would be appreciated. Regards. Woody (talk) 23:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Likewise. If he's a sock, it would be helpful for other admins to see which other user he is supposed to be a sock. Could you perhaps leave a note about the sockmaster on his talk page so that we can respond to his unblock request? Thanks! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I've no idea who's sock it is. But (on the balance of probabilities - which is what matters) it is the sock of some banned user. Do you disagree? It certainly quacks like a duck.--Doc^g 00:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Really, I agree he has a familiarity with Wikipedia that only an experienced user should have, but unless we know WHICH banned user he is, how do we know this isn't just a legitimate use of sockpuppets (people are allowed multiple accounts for non-disruptive reasons) or they may be a user who has edited under an IP for a long time and just recently registered an account. If we don't have any specific person he is a sock of, I am inclined to unblock since he has not misbehaved in any way that I can tell... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

If you genuinely thing that (on the balance of probabilities) he isn't the sock of some banned user or another, then by all means unblock. But do you? Requiring that we know which one is just silly. If he's probably the sock of one of them then that's enough. But, as I say, if you think it is more likely that's he's the genuine newbie he claims to be, who just got an urge to troll on Jimmy's talk page and a miraculous knowledge of wikipedia, and knew how to log out, find my user page, and post as an anon (see the history), if you think that's more likely that him being the sock of a banned user, then by all means unblock, I won't object. But do you?--Doc^g 00:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I will unblock, and I have never made the claim that he was a miraculous newbie. I said he may be a well experienced user which has a legitimate reason to be editing under a new account. He can always be reblocked as soon as he starts acting poorly.--Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, if you want to, no objection.--Doc^g 00:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

JW talk page

Sorry about that. For some reason I thought that that BCST had removed more from the talk page than he did. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

No problems. I wasn'tgoing to fight you over it ;) --Doc^g 16:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Rachel Marsden

As you can see here, full protect has no point when admins ignore the requirement to discuss. If you would semi the article instead then other established editors could help maintain it. When you full-protect, we cannot. Wjhonson (talk) 18:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

BLP Hicks

Hello, Doc. May I bother you with a request? Having compressed the article Tom Hicks and eliminated gratuitous detail from the "Liverpool F.C." section by incorporating discarded text into History of Liverpool F.C., I decided to review the bulk of the article and was dismayed to notice some inadequately (un)sourced claims with a conspicuous BLP dimension. Would you mind examining the article to determine whether there are more subtle BLP violations that "new eyes" might not overlook? Regards, SoLando (Talk) 23:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I have now removed a large amount of unreferenced and non-neutral negative material.--Doc^g 18:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! It really is appreciated. SoLando (Talk) 19:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

File:David,larry.JPG		My RFA
		Thank you muchly for your support in my recent request for adminship, which was successfully closed on 76%, finishing at 73 supports, 23 opposes and 1 neutral. The supports were wonderful, and I will keep in mind the points made in the useful opposes and try to suppress the Larry David in me! Now I'm off to issue some cool down blocks, just to get my money's worth! Kidding btw. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Shawn Lonsdale

I had been meaning to expand that article with the secondary sources that I listed in the "Further reading" section. (I was not the initial creator of the article, but noticed it and did some initial sourcing). Could you restore it and stub it so that I can utilize the secondary sources that I had worked to compile, or restore it and send it to WP:AfD? Cirt (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Alternatively could you restore it to my userspace, and I will work on it and check back with you before doing anything else/moving it, and I'll put some sort of tag on it that says it is "not an article"? (can't find that template/tag at the moment) Cirt (talk) 22:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

As an outside observer, I agree with the BLP deletion. Just start from scratch and make it more NPOV, instead of just an article about him and Scientology. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

See my reply at Nick (talk · contribs)'s talk page. I'm not an admin, but I'd like to get at the sources I had worked to compile from the deleted article. I understand the rationale that it's best to start from scratch, I had actually not written that much at all of the article's text itself, but I did work to compile secondary sources in the "Further reading" section, and if at all possible I'd rather not have to compile them again and format them. Cirt (talk) 23:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I will e-mail you the sources. But I'm still not convinced that a article could be written here. This was a horrible article about a recently dead person and validly deleted under BLP. A collection of newspaper article recording nasty stuff is not a proper use of wikipedia.--Doc^g 23:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, in that case I won't even post it into my userspace area until I have done all I think I can do, then if you are not satisfied with it, I will request speedy deletion by user. Again, I must stress that I did not start the article, I did not add that much text to the article, but I did add secondary sources to the "Further reading" section. Cirt (talk) 23:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I placed {{db-user}} on my userspace Sandbox, it can be deleted and I'll work offline for a while. Cirt (talk) 23:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, Nick (talk · contribs) did it. Cirt (talk) 23:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• I created the article Shawn Lonsdale from scratch, using material cited to WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources. Please provide input if you feel like it, and if requested to do so I will nominate it for deletion myself. Cirt (talk) 02:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• • I have redirected this to Scientology and Me. Lonsdale only seems notable for his appearance in one episode of a weekly BBC documentary. It is bad enough that we have an article (Scientology and Me) on a single episode of a multi-topic news programme, without a "biography" of a bit player. This guy simply isn't notable enough, and I suggest that you might want to merge anything that is relevant with that article. WP:BLP means we tread carefully with bios of the recently dead, and using one of them to have a go at scientology isn't on. We've sufficient articles debating Scientology.--Doc^g 09:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I noticed your redirect. Could I ask you to undo the redirect solely so that I can send the article to WP:AfD myself, as I had promised previously if one editor did not think the new version of the article I created asserts notability? This way we could solicit/gain some community input on notability, and assess whether or not the community thinks that a merge/redirect to Scientology and Me is the best way to go. Cirt (talk) 23:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
      • AfD is NOT used for determining merge/redirect decisions. One should only go there is something needs deleting.--Doc^g 23:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Right, but your redirect was essentially a delete because you did not merge any info, and you also mentioned in your edit summary and in comments the talk page and and WP:BLPN that you questioned the notability of the subject matter. And AfD is a good place to gain input from the community on notability. And please, no need to use CAPS. Cirt (talk) 23:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Would you mind if I undo the redirect and send the article straight to WP:AfD? I would like to gain input from the community on the notability of the article. Cirt (talk) 23:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Perhaps I may have worded my comments poorly, I want to start an AfD not to have the community weigh in on a redirect, but rather on the notability of the article. Cirt (talk) 23:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Doc glasgow (talk · contribs), I know you are trying to do the right thing here, and I will defer to whatever decision you decide - that's why I did not undo your redirect outright but came here to your talkpage first. I also want to apologize if I worded something unclear above. But I want to go to AfD to have the community give input on the article's notability. But again, I will defer to your decision on that. Cirt (talk) 23:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Well since you haven't responded (no worries) I will assume that you are opposed to the idea of undoing the redirect and sending the article to WP:AfD. If that's not the case, feel free to message my talk page. I made a good faith attempt to recreate the article, and I had not written any of the article-text for the previous version, just provided secondary sources in a list in a "Further reading" section. Too bad it didn't work out, but that 2nd version contained all the info I could really find in WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources, just couldn't really find much more info about him that didn't focus on his role as a Scientology critic. Thanks for your input in all this. Cirt (talk) 22:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
        • I don't think this merits a biography. You are entitled to disagree, but you are unlikely to convince me otherwise. However, I don't get the final word, and you are entitled to contest this on the talk page of the article and see what others think, if indeed anyone cares. However, afd is really only a place to go when you want something deleted - you don't, and I'm happy with a redirect. But as I say, you are entitled to make your case on the article's talk page, where it is possible that consensus will go with you and not me. Thanks for your patience and civility here.--Doc^g 22:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is awkward

I just closed Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names#Justjihad as defaulting to allow the username, and found you'd blocked the user when I went to notify them of the change. Seems we've had a collision. How do we resolve this? – Luna Santin (talk) 00:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I really can't understand how that's a helpful username, and the account seems to be a POV pusher. But, I will not kick up a fuss if someone thinks that it is more helpful to the project to allow it to continue. I'd just be a bit surprised myself. doesn't look like this guy is going to fit in somehow [1]--Doc^g 01:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Your block takes into account more than just the username, I gather, which is perfectly sensible. My attention was originally drawn by Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Username RFC in need of closing; I'll post there and see if any further input comes up. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

As I say, I will not fight it if I'm reversed by consensus somewhere.--Doc^g 01:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Protection of Jimmy Wales article talk page

Hi. You've protected the Jimmy Wales article's talk page for the reason of "m (Protected Talk:Jimmy Wales: trolling [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed])". Would you be prepared to reconsider that protection? Thanks. AntHolnes (talk) 13:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It isn't actually protected. You should still be able to edit it. It is only semi-protected, so it is only IPs and brand new users who can't edit - and all we're getting from them is trolling.--Doc^g 13:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for responding. Attached is a link [2] to a screenshot showing

• your "Special Contributions" page. Highlighted are the lines where the Jimmy Wales and Rachel Marsden talk pages were protected
• the log of the Jimmy Wales talk page showing the same thing
• the log of the Rachel Marsden talk page showing the same thing
• my Wikipedia interface showing I can't edit the Wikipedia main page, which is expected, but can edit a randomly chosen article page and talk page, but can't edit the Jimmy Wales and Rachel Marsden talk pages as there is no "Edit this page" tab, but I can edit other talk pages.

I logged off and checked what the pages look like for an anonymous visitor. They can't edit those two talk pages either. Thanks for looking AntHolnes (talk) 14:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, You edited your initial response [3] to the current one [4] while I was posting my reply to your previous one, so my reply doesn't make full sense any more. Thanks for updating your reply with more detail. Could you give some examples of the trolling you're referring to and also the section of the Protection Policy page that justifies or allows the protection of a talk page for that reason. Thanks for any clarification. AntHolnes (talk) 14:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I could be referring to single purpose accounts created specifically to troll on this article. Like yours.--Doc^g 17:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I am trolling but I can understand and appreciate that you have a different point of view. Thanks for clarifying your reasons and responding to my question. AntHolnes (talk) 17:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Sonny

Sorry on the "son" crack; from the writing style I suspect you're my age or so. Old enough to remember college age as a fond memory, but young enough to be worried about midlife crisis. Cheers. You're ace on BLPs--I just want to make sure that THIS one is treated to the letter like any other BLP. We have to completely treat Jimmy's absolutely as if he had no idea who he was in regards to Wikipedia. Not one shred of anything extra that a run of the mill BLP would not get. Or the media and trolls will have a field day. Lawrence § t/e 17:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Hm, the end of my college time wasn't that long ago, but since I spent far too long there, the start of it is a vague memory from a time when we hated Thatcher and thought George Michael was cool (well almost). Actually, since all we have is a short affair with a minor celebrity and some media repeats of some fuzzy claims about expenses liberality, I am very relaxed in saying I'd remove this from any other bio. So, if I fail to do argue for that here, then I would be treating Wales differently.--Doc^g 17:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I remember fondly voting against Thatcher's cohort on our side, Ronnie, for all the good it did. If the coverage doesn't abate or die off, you think your views would change? Lawrence § t/e 17:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

There's a fine line between what is news - this is (so wikinews it) - and what is significant for a biography - too soon to tell really. Unless something dramatic happens (resignation, lawsuit etc) it is fairly difficult to tell whether this is a 7 day (minor - non-headline) news cycle, or something of the type of significance that would go in an extended obituary 40 years from now. Given that uncertainly, I think we need to err on the side of caution with a BLP. The problem here is that people are confusing sources/verifiability (which we have) with encyclopaedic relevance (which is at least debatable). Sleeping with someone isn't notable (there are exceptions). We don't list affairs (normally). Being accused, by a disgruntled ex-employee, of living it up on expenses isn't notable. These things are only notable if they have consequences. The only consequences here (so far) are re-hashes of an AP story - is that in itself notable? Probably not, since many things cause wikipedia stories at this (still fairly low) media interest level. Will anyone outside Wikipedia care in 2 weeks? Dunno.--Doc^g 18:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Please be more clear

Your reversion of my re-insertion of the talk page material at Rachel Mardsen has the following edit summary: "this is a BLP - stop it or I gets a blocking)" I can't make heads or tails of what you are trying to say here- please use clear language, especially when throwing the word "blocking" around.Sethie (talk) 19:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a biographical article. Do not replace comments that are a mixture of personal attacks and trolling, and certainly not useful discussion of the article content. If you keep replacing such off-topic rubbish, you may be blocked for disruption.--Doc^g 22:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

First off, thank you for finally being clear at least, your first edit summary was complete gibberish.

The time signatures don't lie.... you responded to me AFTER your revert... so I am not trusting that you are actually interested in dialogue.

Your revert btw removed my raising of this issue on the talk page. So not only are you insisting that you get your way, you are removing discussion complaining about your way.

If you are threatening to ban me, fine, I will back off, you win.... this type of behavior being why wikipedia is in the spotlight- abuse of power.

Seriously... it is my belief that you've just put one more nail in the coffin. Sethie (talk) 23:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

We are far more in the spotlight for allowing nastiness about living people. it is quite simple, talk pages are for discussing the content of the article and seeking consensus on what should be in it. Anything else can be removed. Especially personal attacks.--Doc^g 23:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You can justify your actions however you wish. Here are the facts:

Section I

Paragraph 1,2,3,5,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14 ARE about the article.

So is paragraph 4- with some pretty direct language... btw which is sourced

Paragraph 6 is a PA towards wikipedia, not RM

Paragraph 13 is a violation of AGF

Section II

Paragraph 1 is violation of AGF and PA towards various users

Paragraph 2 is clearly about the article

Paragraph 3 Felinious monks commentary.

The majority of the passages 14/18 you are fighting to stay out ARE about this article.

There are no defamations of RM so BLP has nothing to do with this.

I am wondering if you can see the irony here- the PA's are about wikipedia, and abuses or power on wikipedia.... and you are using your power to remove them, and in the process removing a lot of very pertinent contents about the article?

Of course the RM page is not the place to discuss the virtues or vices of wikipedia as a whole and you are really throwing the baby out with the bathwater here.... and sadly in the process you are proving the case for the detractors and weakening wikipedia. :( Sethie (talk) 23:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Sethie, I have trouble seeing any of that as being substantial content helping the article. I would have not removed it but I really don't see any compelling reason to include it either. If there are any specific issues you think should be discussed that were mentioned there you are of course welcome to bring them up. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Right now all we are looking as is talk page material being removed, with a few critical remarks of wikipedia... with false reasoning- BLP vios, that the material was only trolling and PA's... all this with the threat of a block for trying to undo unjustified removal of talk page discussions. Sethie (talk) 00:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

And I agree with you that it didn't need to be removed but I really don't see any advantage to having it there. Again, if you have specific issues related to the page in question feel free to bring that up. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Your are very diplomatic and disarming JoshuaZ, which I salute. The only question that remains is- given that it was removed under false pretenses, given that you don't see a need for that removal, given that talk pages as a rule are not censored (save extreme cases), what do you see now as the best course of action, in terms of wiki policies, fairness and respect for the majority of that discussion, which were legit and about the page? Sethie (talk) 01:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it was under "false pretenses" disagreeing with something being a reason doesn't make it under false pretenses. In any event, unless there's something in the material that matters in particular I suggest you let the matter drop. If there is a specific issue that you think needs to be addressed then feel free to bring it up. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Doc has said it was per blp concerns and per trolling/PA's. I have shown that there is no blp concerns in that material and that the trolling/PA issues are the minority of the text, so you would be correct I supppse- we can call just plain old inaccuracy.

While I appreciate that for you, content is the issue, it is not an issue for me, at all. You are welcome to bring that up as often as you like.

For me what we are discussing is is an Admin, who gave innacurate reasons for an action, and then threatened a block when his actions where challenged- while being unwilling to discuss his actions.

So we agree there is no reason for that material to be removed, Removing material is highly irregular, especially whole sections. Per these guidelines [[5]] and [[6]] I understand if you or Doc wish to remove certain PORTIONS of these comments (though I think it is unnecesary- and in this case makes wikipedia look bad)... however I would ask Doc to not remove comments about a talk page again.

You did not answer my question as to what you felt was the best course of action, now. I await justifcation for the removal, otherwise I will put it back. Thanks! Sethie (talk) 03:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Kurt Turkulney

Hello.

Just letting you know, I've converted your 31 hour block for disruption to indefinite. This user has been found to be a sockpuppet of Ottawaman as proven by checkuser.

Thank you for your vigilance. ~Kylu (u|t) 01:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Lir's unban request

You should be aware that there is currently a discussion at WP:AN conerning the banning of Lir. It's unfortunate that the matter isn't presented there. __meco (talk) 18:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Where is this arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org? Can't see it on the list page--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

David Motari

No problem; I wanted to speedy it myself, but I just couldn't find any basis in WP:CSD on which to do so. I forgot about badlydrawnjeff. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Review for Motari David

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Motari David. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.110.163.106 (talk) 17:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:VPP discussion on BLP1E

Doc, could you give your two cents over there? There are a number of people proposing to take BLP1E out of BLP, again. FCYTravis (talk) 20:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't get my head round that discussion at all. I've always been fairly uninterested in policy pages, I'd rather just take action. I see no clear proposal on that page whatsoever.--Doc^g 16:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Please block TheMiddleWay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as an obvious sockpuppet of Justjihad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and continue to watch the Mortgage article. The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I've no idea about this case I'm afraid.--Doc^g 16:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi

You've indicated various places (mostly on Wikback if I recall correctly) that you don't see why the edits that were made to the Rachel Marsden article following Jimbo's request were problematic per BLP. I've created the essay Wikipedia:Zero-sum BLP, in part to try to explain what the problem is, though it's a general principle that applies to more cases than just this one. (in short, keep in mind that Tony Backhurst is also a living person, even if we don't have an article about him) —Random832 14:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Samiharris sock tag was reverted

Please respond at this place. Sorry, Doc. Lawrence § t/e 22:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Riana's request for bureaucratship

Dear Doc, thank you for taking part in my RfB. As you may know, it was not passed by bureaucrats. I would, however, like to thank you for taking the time to voice your support, despite concerns cited by the opposition. Although RfA/B isn't really about a person, but more about the community, I was deeply touched and honoured by the outpouring of support and interest in the discussion. I can only hope that you don't feel your opinion was not considered enough - bureaucrats have to give everyone's thoughts weight. I also hope that the results of this RfB lead to some change in the way we approach RfBs, and some thought about whether long-entrenched standards are a good thing in our growing and increasingly heterogenous community. I remain eager to serve you as an administrator and as an editor. If at any point you see something problematic in my actions, please do not hesitate to call me out. ~ Riana ⁂ 12:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for clarification

Please comment at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Request for clarification: Mantanmoreland. Jehochman ^Talk 13:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

AC

Well, if the AC won't do it's job maybe we should just set up a better alternative. Lawrence § t/e 13:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It's job being? Oh yes, what you want it to do.--Doc^g 14:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It's job being to answer questions brought to it, not punt it back. The community clearly wants the AC's role to be more broadly taken. The AC doesn't want that, from what I see. If the AC won't do what the community wants, the community can do what it needs. If that means scrubbing the AC, or making a different one, it can. The AC has no power but what we collectively allow it. Lawrence § t/e 14:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh I agree with most of that. Arbcom are the community's final stage in dispute resolution. It is OK for arbcom to fail to conclude, or fail to reach a majority, such is life. The status quo then stays. But we need "closure", whether we like the close or not. Arbcom must be final in contentious cases. Else we are into votes for banning. If they are not up for that, then they are not fit for purpose. The community is entitle to replace arbcom with something else - the community is sovereign. But meantime we can't have opinion polls overturning the supreme court.--Doc^g 14:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to drop by to thank you for boldly choosing to throw another truckload of fuel onto the inferno. Jay*Jay (talk) 14:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Either I don't understand the point of analogy and thanks, or you are trolling. I'll assume the first.--Doc^g 14:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to say, congrats for having the guts to unblock after the premature block, especially in the face of that community discussion. I'm glad you and Coren were able to work things out, by all accounts, though I haven't found that discussion yet. I too thought your action might throw fuel on the fire, but it seems that things are still fairly calm. Maybe discussion and/or calls for calm do work sometimes. Carcharoth (talk) 23:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the discussion was on a super-sekret IRC channel ;) --Doc^g 23:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Feedback on draft requested - User:Lawrence Cohen/Arbitration RFC draft

Hi, if you have a moment, would you mind reviewing User:Lawrence Cohen/Arbitration RFC draft? I'm just beginning to draft this, but given the recent situations I think this could be valuable to see what community mandates if any exist for changes the Arbitration Committee could be required to accept. My intention was to keep the RFC format exceptionally simple, with a very limited number of "top level" sections that were fairly precise. Please leave any feedback on User talk:Lawrence Cohen/Arbitration RFC draft. Thanks. Lawrence § t/e 17:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Awards

I've tossed an award in your direction. I'm ignorant of the formatting so there isnt a timestamp. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 04:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciated I'll append the timestamp. --Doc^g 13:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

If she did not want to see it, she should have kept her foolish mouth shut. You need to give a valid reason why her mouth vomit does not belong. Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smad29 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Springer

I see no reason the synopsis should not be used, I wrote to Stuart Lee and got his permission to use it in the article, I've said it can be edited, just not to insert meaningless fluff, or to previous editors, not to edit inserting bias and the such TR (talk) 23:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion continued on your talk page.--Doc^g 23:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: China

Hi Doc,

I understand your concerns, and I seriously recommend you look through the entire history of the reason why we had to place a long term full protection. I would suggest starting with this: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Peter zhou and this: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/JackyAustine. This problem is, or at least was, that this particular individual has been building a supply of sleeper socks since 2006. The checkuser may have dug up 30 to 40 of them, but we believe that we only discovered the tip of the iceberg. Several sysops, including myself, have attempted many options before I locked down the article. A few of them being, indef blocking the socks, using checkuser to find the socks, etc. and this had been going on for months and months and months upon months. It was frustrating. So we came down to two options, lock down the page until the individual is no longer interested in Wikipedia and trying to push his POV with his socks, or range block several IP ranges. As option 2 would take out half a city, the full protection option was our only option. Granted, it was indef. but this was done so that we can make sure that the individual gets the message that his actions will not be tolerated and that we do not provide the individual an avenue to continue his disruption.

I currently have no objections to your actions in unprotecting the article, but calling it ridiculous, when it seems you have not looked into the entire history of the situation, is completely uncalled for.

Anyways, I have other matters to attend to and I believe you do to.

Regards,

nat.utoronto 01:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

oh, yes, another thing, could you set the protection level at semi, if possible. nat.utoronto 01:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any gain in allowing a vandal to win by locking an article permanently, better just keep reverting till he gets bored. We can semi-protect for a few hours at a time if there is persistant vandalism, I see none right now.--Doc^g 02:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

History of deleted BCBot opt-out

Is there any way to restore the history of that page? It contains diffs for at least two of BC's examples of personal attacks, in which he calls two different established editors (myself being the last) "vandals." With the arbcom pending now, this could be important for those of us who will be compiling a list of diffs. Regards, Bellwether ^B_C 02:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry. It will likely be restored for the duration of the arbitration case (if it still opens tomorrow as scheduled) and then redeleted. Doc was right to speedy delete the user page, while Luna Santin was right to decline the deletion request for the talk page, as discussion exists there. Carcharoth (talk) 03:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Doc - would you mind annotating the close at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:BetacommandBot/Opt-out? At the moment there is no indication why the close shows that the page was speedy deleted but the page is still there and the page itself doesn't bear a tag or anything to show this either. Thanks.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 04:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you'd better ask whoever undeleted it, since they didn't bother to inform me. I have no real idea why my closure was undone.--Doc^g 09:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Your closure hasn't been undone. That should be obvious from the deletion log: "33 revisions restored: per request at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2/Evidence, for evidence gathering purposes". I have to ask, Doc, did you even bother looking at the deletion log (four clicks away) before saying: "I have no real idea why my closure was undone." Sure, it might have been polite to inform you, but anyone around here who knows how the place works looks in the deletion log summary first to see what the reason is for undeletion. Carcharoth (talk) 12:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The point is it isn't really for me to annotate the close, and I'm not sure what it would achieve.--Doc^g 12:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

BLPs

You are WPs resident BLP fanatic, I would appreciate your opinion on this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Don_Murphy because you are the person most likely to get the deletion reason, something that sails far above the heads of many others. Viridae^Talk 02:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocking Bleveret

I'm concerned by the comment you made when you blocked Bleveret for 24 hours:

I have blocked you for 24 hours for disruption. You have constantly recreated a trolling userbox after being warned by many admins. You've had your appeal to DRV and it was rejected. Now, knock it off. I, or another admin, will happily unblock you earlier that 24 hours if you indicate that you will desist.--Doc^g 00:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Please be more civil in the future. User:Bleveret/Userbox/ruin was much more neutral than his original User:Bleveret/Userbox/BCBruin; it was not reposting of deleted content. The deletion review was closed before Bleveret even had a chance to comment, and was closed by the same administrator who deleted User:Bleveret/Userbox/BCBruin and User:Bleveret/Userbox/ruin in the first place. Also, 24 hours is a bit harsh for the first offense of a good faith editor. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 05:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with RTD. The userbox he put on his page was NOT the same one that was deleted. User:Hammersoft, one of the most vocal opponents of the original box, even said he didn't have a problem with the most recent box. I fail to see how a block is appropriate, especially since the user in question really didn't do anything wrong. He did not "constantly recreate a trolling userbox." I also think that the admin closing the DR immediately was also out of line, but that's a little off topic. Enigma ^msg! 05:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh for goodness sake. Call a troll a troll. This user created a trolllbox attacking bettacommand, and recreated it constantly after deletions. He then recreates the box substituting "fair use bots" for Bettacommand - I mean, how many fairuse bots are there? Hundreds? It gets deleted. He recreates it again. I block him. You assume good faith and unblock, and guess what? He creates it again? And you scream to me about his rights and my civility. This is a joke.--Doc^g 08:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Doc, how about someone who puts "DEATH TO FAIR USE" on their user page. Are they trolling as well? And there is more than just one fair use bot. User:BetacommandBot, User:Non-Free Content Compliance Bot, User:STBotI, User:ImageResizeBot. I'm not even sure BetacommandBot was the first one. And there are plenty of other images bots. User:ImageRemovalBot, User:MiszaBot (I think, for sources). Just look through the image deletion logs and you will see a lot of bots tagging unsourced and non-free images, which is good. I'm hoping to co-ordinate activity at WP:NFCC-C eventually. Carcharoth (talk) 15:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Doc, criticism is allowed. I can't see any grounds for objection to the second version of the userbox. Friday (talk) 15:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Whilst Bettacommand should not be above criticism, calling those things that have any chance of keeping us compliant with Foundations non-free decrees ruinous is trolling. There people take enough shit, without us allowing resources to be misused in heaping abuse on their existence. You got concerns about the way they do their work? Fine - discuss that. You want them removed and the non-free policy made nonsense? Not fine - go somewhere else. Had the second userbox been created in isolation, I'd have ignored it. But it was created as part of a troll to wikilawyer round the initial deletion. --Doc^g 15:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

If his position is reasonable, we have something to gain from letting him express it. If his position is unreasonable, we have nothing to lose from letting him express it. This is why criticism is allowed. Friday (talk) 16:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, allowing unreasonable criticism to go unchecked (and since when was a userbox a constructive way of criticising anything) has resulted in an atmosphere that deters good users from helping enforce our fair use policy. Whilst we need to discourage overzealous incivility by free use enforcers, we also need to create an atmosphere where they know we've got their back. Otherwise, we might as well forget the non-free media policies.--Doc^g 16:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Things can go too far the other way as well. See here and here. Why only allow advocacy in one direction and not the other? The logical endpoint is the German solution, but unlike the German solution we seem determined to turn Wikipedia into a battleground along the way. Rallying calls like "Free Wikipedia!", "Say NO to Fair Use" and "DEATH TO FAIR USE" are just as divisive and inflammatory. Please, if you want to be seen as fair and unbiased, you should express an opinion on that as well. Carcharoth (talk) 16:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

We are a free project. To call for, or work towards, an end to fair-use is perfectly legitimate as other wikimedia projects have indeed taken that decision. However, to call for, or work towards, an end to restictions on non-free use is not. It is antithetical to the project's aims. Anyway, thay WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't a good reason to allow this. And who said I was "fair and unbiased"? Anyway, need we keep on at this?--Doc^g 16:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

As long as you agree it is acceptable for people to say "DEATH" in capital letters, then yes, we do need to keep on at this. I would understand your position a lot more if you would explain how saying "DEATH TO..." (regardless of what is being described) helps the aims of the project. My view is that allowing "DEATH TO..." calls is divisive and antithetical to the collaborative editing environment that allows us to achieve the project's aims. In addition, incremental changes to the limitations on non-free use (ie. constantly whittling the amount down in a WP:BATTLEGROUND manner) is also antithetical to the project's aims. Can you not see that? There is also a large body of opinion that holds that non-free use is needed to maintain the quality of the encyclopedia (particularly in terms of educating people). Have a look at WT:NFC, where I've posted about three of the common positions: free content mission, educational mission and the need to reduce legal exposure. People who paint this as a black-and-white situation are extremely unhelpful. It is a very nuanced debate, and people need to recognise the existence of a spectrum of opinions and try to work with others, not battle with them. Carcharoth (talk) 16:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, OK. But trolling bot owners is not a useful debating position.--Doc^g 16:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank-you. And I agree, trolling bot owners is not good, but the debate has moved on from that. I've never subscribed to the "fruit of the poisoned tree" concept. Healthy debates can outgrow their origins, however bad they are. Sorry if I was a bit snappy earlier. If you want to drop this now, I'm happy to drop it as well. Carcharoth (talk) 16:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I have a question about your statement, "...calling those things that have any chance of keeping us compliant with Foundations non-free decrees ruinous is trolling." What part of what Wikimedia Foundation decree are you referring to? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 17:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I am referring to userboxes trolling bettacommand, I am not having a philosophical discussion about free content. *Shrug*--Doc^g 17:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, you seem to be under the impression that BetacommandBot is enforcing Foundation-level policy when half of what it enforces is unrelated to the Foundation's policy. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 17:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh for goodness sake. I don't care. Trolling is trolling.--Doc^g 18:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

End points

Doc, hi. I read your comment at the RfC, and while I agree that a change on venue is appropriate for the ongoing discussion, I would take issue with your summary judgment that nothing new is being said. On that page, I'm learning a lot, and developing some very interesting ideas about how to improve conflict resolution on Wikipedia. I don't like to complain, but I think you should know that I don't appreciate having productive dialog in which I am engaged described as "festering" or "nothing new". There's a whole language or words to choose, and you chose "fester". What does that do for the atmosphere?

Thanks for understanding, and I'm sorry if our productive discussion about how to make Wikipedia better bothered you. You can always unwatch the page, you know. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The discussion is fine. But having a RfC running on an individual user is just a massive "kick me" sign. That's what's festering.--Doc^g 21:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

An Unusual Case

I just came across Air GTA. I'm not positive if it's notable which is why I'm asking you. If it is, the creator seems to be unsatisfied with it as they slapped a {{hangon}} on it and said it was too short on the talk page. -WarthogDemon 17:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Kurt Krenn

Hi. As I have just found out thanks to your message, you have deleted the Kurt Krenn page. What is going on here? I couldn't find any AfD discussion. <KF> 22:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I speedy deleted the article as is contravened our policy on biographies of living people. The policy requires that all negative statements are referenced from reliable sources, this biography was full of them and wholly unreferenced. You are welcome to recreate a new article which complies with the policy.--Doc^g 22:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

This is certainly no case for speedy deletion. There are people all over the world whose biography is full of "negative statements" because they have done a lot of negative things in their lives. You might have put an "unreferenced" tag on top of the article or put it on AfD, nothing more. Please recreate it and do one or the other. Best wishes, <KF> 22:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Policy allows, indeed mandates deletion. The problem is not negative statements, it is negative statements without referencing. Such things must always be removed from wikipedia.--Doc^g 22:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems you got a bit carried away. Where does it say that "policy mandates deletion"? Let me repeat my request: Please restore the deleted page and all of its edit history. Only afterwards can you do any of the following four things: (a) add an "unreferenced" tag; (b) provide the missing reference(s) yourself; (c) add an AfD tag and create the corresponding AfD page; or (d) remove those passages from the article which might harm Krenn. All the best, <KF> 22:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to decline your request.--Doc^g 22:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

KF, why don't you just rewrite the article, paying attention to neutrality and verifiability, ie reliable references. He is clearly notable but because he is controversial we must take extra care. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I've just copied the above to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Deletion_of_Kurt_Krenn. <KF> 23:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

eo:John Michael Wright

Hey Doc,

Well, I guess Charlotte Stuart wasn't enough, so I went on translating in Esperanto yet another one of your kids. It should be featured on our main page next week. Best wishes, Thomas Guibal (talk) 14:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Once again I'm honoured. I guess I'll need to write my next FA soon for you to translate.--Doc^g 16:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Review for Sami Omar Al-Hussayen

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Sami Omar Al-Hussayen. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 17:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't erase the content, kthx

My apologies for the harsh application of "vandal" earlier-- sometimes I get called into the middle of something at work, and I would not not have chosen it with a moment more of thought. However, you did remove content from Vicki Iseman, and your reason was no better than the person adding the content. In that regard, I feel you acted in the wrong. But with ASG. --Yamara ✉ 19:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

If you disagree with my edits, you are entitled to revert them (hopefully giving a good reason in your own edit summary), but don't treat them as vandalism, don't use rollback, and don't template me. It isn't just that you need to AGF, it is that to rate them as possible vandalism is just plain wrong. Either you are acting as a content editor who disagrees with my edits and wants to revert (and that's valid) OR you are dealing with plain vandalism (not both).--Doc^g 19:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Geoffrey Edelsten - Serious BLP, Attack Page, Libel, Coatrack Issues. Please Help.

Article: Geoffrey Edelsten

Hi! I noticed you have already removed a lot of the negative BLP and policy related content from this article. The problem is that despite your warning the content has found it's way back.

I added policy citations and removed the negative stuff today but again it has come back. Subsequently my talk page has been vandalised with opinion and untruth citing policy to back up opinion which plainly is wrong. This should not be allowed as it is hurtful and just wrong.

I've put up a post on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Serious_and_Continuous_Wikipedia_Policy_Breach_of_BLP_and_Other_Policy_Amounting_to_Vandalism

I don't know what to do now and would really appreciate your help and advice.

Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifactsright (talk • contribs) 03:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Negative stuff is allowed, if it is neutrally described and refererenced from reliable sources. Perhaps if you could explain which part isn't neutral and referenced it might help?--Doc^g 08:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

misattribution

Sorry about using the wrong name in the DelRev discussion--just that your pt of view on this is so clear & prominent. I'll argue against it , of course, whenever the matter arises, but don't interpret this as disrespect. I of cours edo agree with the use of BLP when its clearly called for, and have speedy deleted articles as G10 when they warranted it, even in one or two cases against some opposition, but I interpret it much more narrowly. I am, for , example, in some doubt whether it would not have been more appropriate to look further for sources for the material of those assorted criminals you just deleted today, and I will certainly support at Deletion Review anyone who finds a decent source and wants to add them back. Just clarifying what was not meant as personal. DGG (talk) 14:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Not taken personally. Anything I delete as unsourced and negative per WP:BLP, I will have no problem in undeleting if anyone wishes either to source and fix immediately, or is willing to take it into their userspace and do likewise. It is why I am bemused when people go to DRV, all they have to do is ask and I will undelete and give it to them. The problem is that there are thousands of unsourced negative biographies of the "x is a convicted drug smuggler type", in an ideal world I'd source all of them myself and delete very few, but if the onus is on people like me, who go looking for them, to source them, then we'd never get clean up. The onus has got to lie on the creator or on those wishing to keep them. But I'm very happy to any admin to undelete any of them if he is willing to ensure all negative allegations are inline cited. (The are other BLP cases, where sourcing isn't the only issue - but they are few and far between).--Doc^g 14:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Brandt

How has this gone through so many process and procedural wars and still escaped arbitration so long? Lawrence § t/e 18:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It hasn't escaped arbcom. But arbcom don't do content. Why do you ask me?--Doc^g 18:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

You're the most clueful person on BLP that I've seen yet. There was a Daniel Brandt RFAR? Lawrence § t/e 19:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war....oh, and thanks for the compliment ;) --Doc^g 19:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Gangster-related BLP violations

I noticed you recently nominated List of Italian American mobsters for deletion on the grounds that it has serious BLP issues. I agree with you on this and would note that this problem is not limited to that article. A lot of organized crime related articles on Wikipedia are full of unreferenced, problematic information. For instance, Chicago Outfit has a massive list of names of "Members" and "Associates," none of which have any citations and many of which are redlinks. Labeling specific people as mobsters (some of whom may still be living, I don't know since I've never heard any of the names before) is very problematic. Similar serious BLP problems can be found at Bonanno crime family, Bonanno crime family (to a lesser extent, but there are still redlinked names), Colombo crime family, and Colombo crime family. And these were just the ones I found in a few minutes. Could you please look over these and similar articles and see what can be done? These are really awful articles, and not just from a BLP standpoint; they are full of unreferenced information of all sorts, and possible original research as well. *** Crotalus *** 13:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no-one takes these BLP concerns seriously. However, policy is on your side. I'm finding the best way to get things done is to remove all unreferenced material per BLP, or if neccessary to delete the article, and then throw the onus back on those who want it undeleted to source it. It makes me as unpopular as the pox, but it really is all that can be done. I will not use AfD again, as AfD tends to say "keep and source" and then not source.--Doc^g 14:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

What I weep for now

I don't know if you keep up with news on missing children, but I thought I better leave this message for you. Three children, taken by their father from Columbus, Georgia that triggered an at least two-state AMBER Alert have been found dead, on March 19. But it was only last night I saw the news about it. I remember the night of the alert I had used my CB Radio to transmit a description to people on the road in my area on CB Highway Channel 19 and Emergency Channel 9. I last night transmitted a cancel on both channels. In some ways, I feel like I failed those two children. When a child is murdered, any child no matter what their color or anything else, I weep. I do so now. Let us hope no more shall suffer this terrible fate as those three. ESCStudent774441 (talk) 14:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Informal query regarding a redirect

Hi, I was wondering if you'd be willing to share your thoughts on a (possibly) BLP-related issue.

Today I proposed for deletion this page, citing WP:NOT and the BLP policy. The author subsequently redirected the page and left me this note. However, it seems to me that the redirect still poses a BLP problem simply due to its title (it's not an attack page, but it can be interpreted as a negative comment regarding physical appearance or personality...).

Putting aside the fact that the redirect is essentially useless (it has no incoming links and is not a plausible search term), does it still pose a BLP issue? Or am I seeing a problem where there really isn't one? If it is problematic, I'll discuss the issue with the author and, if necessary, take the matter to RfD; if it isn't, I'll let the issue drop.

The reason I'm asking you is because I want to get the perspective of someone who is more involved in and has more experience with BLP issues than I, and your name came to mind. Also, if there really isn't a problem here, I don't want to raise the issue with the author (or in a more formal setting, such as RfD or BLP/N), as the proposed deletion seems to have aggravated him/her.

Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't really raise any BLP issues. Comparing Keira Knightley to a dinosaur isn't civil, isn't NPOV, and more to the point isn't funny, but since it is patently untrue it can't be libellous, and in userspace rather than article space it is pretty harmless. The user concerned is being immature, but it isn't worth worrying about.--Doc^g 22:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, then. Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Jean Ziegler

You have a point. The reference from UN Watch doesn't belong in Wikipedia. However, my other additions are from credible sources, such as The Weekly Standard and ABC News.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC))

Not all credible information is added to a biography. It may unbalance it. Please make your suggestions on the talk page of the article and see what others think.--Doc^g 22:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Don Murphy

Why did you revert me? I added a lot of valid content about the film producer, and I requested for help in modifying it in line with WP:BLP. Please restore what you think is valid to mention about the producer; I highly doubt that all of my additions were completely invalid for the article. RTFA (talk) 16:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining, though you did not need to use caps. I do not believe that there is a problem with my revision because everything in my revision is fully sourced. I attempted to balance information about the producer's reputation with two quotes from the producer himself. Seeing that you are part of the BLP watch, can you point out what you think can be disputed? Everything is verifiable information from reliable sources. RTFA (talk) 17:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

How can you revert another editor without even reviewing the content? It does not seem to assume good faith at all. I do not believe that the content is disputable, but I am sure that Murphy will have a problem with more content on his article, as he has always had a problem with anything about him on Wikipedia. In any case, I've commenced discussion at the talk page, but in the future, I would ask you to at least review the content and not just blindly revert to an underdeveloped revision. RTFA (talk) 17:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I had/have no need to review the content. Your own edit summary told me it was disputed, had been removed by others under BLP, ant that you knew this. Don't add disputed content back into BLPs and then invite discussion. Discuss first and get a consensus before inserting. It's really quite simple.--Doc^g 17:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

You were quite correct Doc- RTFA is a single purpose account, and enemy IRL of Murphy's pushing his own agenda.TheUnknownCitizen (talk) 21:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, I'm not happy with your proposal, but I would encourage you to review the second archive of the talk page and understand that my intents are not malicious. I do have a question, though. Does the topic ban include the talk page? As I indicated with the discussion, I can limit myself to contributing to discussions on the talk page about the content. RTFA (talk) 23:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think you'd be doing yoursef and wikipedia a favour if you moved on from this article altogether. Why are you obsessed with this one article?--Doc^g 23:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

see my post above- RTFA is an enemy IRL pushing a hidden agenda TheUnknownCitizen (talk) 23:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no evidence of that. But he is obsessed, and I do ask "why?".--Doc^g 23:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

And he has answered that question in the AN/I thread and elsewhere on numerous occasions. Please, look at his actual contributions and see that he is trying to help, admitted-sock or no. Steve ^{T • C} 23:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

He hasn't actually. He's explained why he uses a SPA. He hasn't explained why he's obsessed (unles I've missed it). Obsessive editors may be trying to help (I AGF) but they rarely actually help on controversial BLPS. Gosh there's a lot of people with agendas here.--Doc^g 23:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

IMO Steve IS RTFA. Murphy drove Steve away from project. Steve came back after dropping F bomb on Murphy. RTFA appears to form attack article. Can we doa Checkuser please?TheUnknownCitizen (talk) 23:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't have checkuser. See WP:RFCU to request it. But I think you'll need more evidence than that.--Doc^g 23:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, speaking as someone who this has happened to, when one gets a bee in the bonnet about a particular article, it can be easy to focus on that one article alone to "get it right". But, no matter his motives, before the AN/I thread was started, civil discussion was ongoing on the best way to proceed with the article. It does seem a bit of a knee-jerk reaction to bring it up at AN/I in these circumstances. Steve ^{T • C} 23:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I have an obsession with the article. The first time around, I wanted to establish Don Murphy's notability more strongly and added all the content I could find. After I was reverted, an admin was persuaded to unilaterally delete the article, after which the whole mess happened. It was a bit much for me, so I left the article for a while. Obviously, though my attempt to be bold was not the wisest, discussion is now underway. This is the second time I've introduced my revision, so it's not like I'm waging a continual campaign on the article. I was hoping for my first introduction to foment discussion, but I didn't expect the mess to happen. I just thought that with the second introduction, deletion issues would be gone and discussion could be underway. Hope that explains my behavior. RTFA (talk) 23:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is questioning RTFAs civility. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

My apologies

...for not notifying you about mentioning your name at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tel Aviv. The first time I brought up your unresolved issues from the prior FAC, I presumed the nom would contact you. I realized recently that s/he hadn't, and pointed that out again, but by then the nom was angrily disputing my oppose. Knowing I'd likely be accused of ulterior motives for notifying you, I hesitated; before I got around to it, you came across the FAC on your own. Sorry for the lapse in courtesy. Maralia (talk) 17:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem, and no apology needed, it was just strange to happen across the debate and think "hey, that's me they are talking about".--Doc^g 18:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity . . .

Is it more of an issue for you that I don't have the skills to write articles, or that I am prouder of facilitating a policy change with minimal drama than I am of my peer review work? While I am certainly proud of the peer reviews Tim listed, that sort of work is a bit of "standing on the shoulders of giants". And I have to admit I am proudest of the things that I found most difficult to accomplish. On the other hand I am definitely lacking skills when it comes down to sitting down and writing an article.--BirgitteSB 17:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll look again, but whilst every editor can't be a FA writer, I usually oppose unless there's some slight evidence of reasonableness article work. We are editors first, if not always foremost. I'm mainly a troubleshooter (or trouble maker) and fixer, but I do know what it feels like to be a content creator. When asked about significant contributions (Q2), I'm highly suspicious of any reply that doesn't mention at least some article work.--Doc^g 18:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

While my direct article work is in bits and pieces, I believe nearly three years of such bits and pieces adds up into a reasonable amount of article work. Or at least it theoretically should become a reasonable amount after some period of time. All the same it would be dishonest to say that those bits and pieces are my most significant contributions. If you are suspicious about whether I am here to build an encyclopedia or not, I can promise I am not here for the politicking. If your suspicions are more about admins who are clueless about content creation stepping onto other's toes, I can reassure you that I am of the sort who is generally aware of how little I know. And I believe my past behavior will support those statements.--BirgitteSB 22:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Civility

"Time to tell the whiners to shut the hell up, or go away." [7]. Do you really think that helped? How would you feel if someone said that to you? Making people angry, or getting angry yourself, is not going to help. Carcharoth (talk) 18:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not angry, and I do think it fairly sums up what we need to do. We've played the nice game for two long now.--Doc^g 18:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh. I thought from the way you phrased that comment that you were angry. Maybe you could say the same thing in a way that will cause less confusion and not lead people to think you are angry? And deciding to play nice for an indeterminate period of time and then change is not the best way to manage a situation like WP:NFCC. Have you read what BHG posted here? "there was very little effective planning on how to handle all those inevitable protests, and minimise the damage caused by the process" - your outburst, to me, is just another symptom in that overall lack of planning. In particular, "the very loose management structure of wikipedia makes it very hard to plan for and co-ordinate the handling of a situation such as this; most wikipedia processes are ad hoc and unstructured, and formal processes such as RfC, XfD, arbcom, etc, have evolved slowly over a long time to deal with issues where experience has shown a need for careful handling, and a lot of time has been available to buikd consensus on an appropriate process." You do BLP work. Do you think that NFCC work should be handled the same way, or taken to a venue like WP:IfD? Carcharoth (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

As I say, I think it is time to do what needs done. Noobs make mistakes, certain others are continually arguing and attempting to work round a policy they frankly disagree with - they need slapped. If we can't make the present thing stick because it is unclear and people will keep gnawing at the bone, they we may need to say "no non-free media", which would be a shame.--Doc^g 19:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

And my view is that those who say or work towards the ultimate aim of "no non-free media" are also attempting to work around a policy they disagree with (ie. they are also trying to work around WP:NFCC), but feel they have "right" on their side. It is trivially simple to stir away and chip away at things (for an example, see here) and then step back and sadly say "What a pity. It's not working. We will have to get rid of non-free media altogether". People having agendas works both ways, and simply because one agenda is "good" doesn't mean that disrupting Wikipedia to achieve that goal is acceptable. It is, in effect, importing the free content battle into Wikipedia. See this essay for more. I support the creation of free content, but not at the expense of disruption caused by trying to remove non-free content altogether. In some ways, the renaming from "fair use" to "non free" was unfortunate, because although "fair use" was no longer the best way to describe it, "non free" is a negative and prejudicial way to describe what is sometimes essential content. See also the arguments posted here. Carcharoth (talk) 20:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no agenda in that direction. I believe that we are a free use encyclopedia, but that in a very few cases, it is beneficial to make exceptions. However, if the choice is between banning non-free and allowing the exceptions to become virtual rules - I go for banning non-free. But, if that regrettable step becomes necessary, the faul will lie with those who made the "very limited exceptions" policy unworkable. I wish to stamp on such people not in order to prevent limited "fair-use", but in order to protect it for the good of the encyclopedia. My agenda is to make the Foundation's policy work, if at all possible, as being the best option.--Doc^g 20:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Then I think it would be best to actively state that there will always be a place for limited fair-use, rather than seeing it as something that can be "taken away". The latter attitude also tends to lead to the threat of "taking it away" being used to enforce it. It should be possible to enforce the policy without saying things like "it will be taken away if people can't work nicely together". Anyway, I hope this little discussion was productive. Carcharoth (talk) 21:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

There is only a place for limited fair use, if we can make the limits stick. I am willing to try, but I am not so optimistic. Taking it away is a live option if all else fails.--Doc^g 21:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Equally, restoring it again even after taking it away would also be a live option. Agreeing the on the limits and how to enforce them has, though, always been the tricky bit. Working on an article-by-article and image-by-image basis is good, but it also helps to keep track of the overall picture, such as at User:BetacommandBot/Free Template Useage and User:BetacommandBot/Non-Free Template Useage. Carcharoth (talk) 21:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Mark Weber AfD

My reason for the no consensus result was because I had thought the "keep" arguments weighed equally to the delete arguments. After seeing your comment and looking over the decision in more detail, I've found that the sources presented are at best, one-time mentions in relatively obscure articles. I've overturned the decision. Singularity 19:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

nominated for deletion?

Please, the article is being rebuilt now. What's the reason it is being submitted for deteletion and what shall i do to keep it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jose ugs (talk • contribs) 10:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Tel Aviv

Following Tel Aviv's third failed FAC, I have worked on the issues brought up and renominated it for a peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Tel Aviv/archive3. Thanks. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 11:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

BLP problem

Thanks very much for your piece on the BLP problem.

Question: You wrote "There is an imbalance between a hard-pressed OTRS volunteer, trying to be helpful, but dealing with dozens of articles per day," Are there literally dozens of OTRS issues per day?!

I want to take more time to think over what you wrote.

One thing that bothers me re BLP articles is what I see as an "attitude of entitlement", on the part of Wikipedia editors, to publish whatever we want as long as it is not specifically illegal or against Wikipedia policy.

To me, this "entitlement" came through strongly in the recent discussion of a BLP article titled Merle Terlesky. This case by the way is also an example where the article subject tried to correct what they saw as a problem by doing some Wiki editing, and was abused in return.

Best wishes, Wanderer57 (talk) 20:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

PS If/when I'm going through 'The BLP Problem' again, is it a problem if I fix some typos on the way through?

By all means fix typos, please. I'll think a bit about your other comments. I intend to add to this essay as comment some in.--Doc^g 20:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Entitlement is arguably a problem throughout modern western society, and amongst young people who haven't been tempered by experience but your "attitude of entitlement" description, Wanderer, is the best summing up of BLP problems I have seen, hence my commenting. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm copying this useful thread to [[User talk:Doc glasgow/The BLP problem to keep things together. Can you make any further comments there (and anyone else). Thanks.--Doc^g 20:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Review for Ahmed_Huber

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ahmed_Huber. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. AnonMoos (talk) 21:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)